sas_history_lookup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing further: it doesn't say what a hit/miss result looks like, whether both locations are always checked, or what happens if neither contains the SQL. The lower bar from annotations keeps this from being a 1.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the interrogative phrasing is slightly less scannable than a declarative statement of what the tool returns.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin – it leaves the `database` argument and the result shape undefined. An agent would have to guess how to invoke it beyond the required SQL string.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It implicitly maps to the required `sql` parameter ('this SQL') but says nothing about the optional `database` parameter, which scope or filtering role remains entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource precisely – SQL sent to SingleStore by SAS – and the two places it is looked up (cluster plan cache vs. local query history). It is framed as a question rather than a statement of action, but an agent can still tell it apart from siblings like sas_query or query_history_ask.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is given: it never says whether this should be preferred over query_history, query_history_data, or sas_query, nor what preconditions (e.g. a live SAS/SingleStore connection) must hold. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the question phrasing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.